March 19, 2012 

Mr. Terry McVenes 

Director – Operational Regulatory Affairs 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

P.O. Box 3707, MC: xx-00 

Seattle, WA 98124-2207 

Dear Mr. McVenes: 

Thank you for your letter of October 20, 2011, petitioning for rulemaking associated with 

function and reliability testing requirements associated with aircraft certification, as defined 

by § 21.35(b) and (f) of Title 14, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Your petition 

proposed to have the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) initiate an Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC). Further, your petition suggested a representative of the 

Aircraft Engineering Division (AIR-100) lead the ARC and include representatives from the 

four Aircraft Certification Directorates (Directorates) and industry. That committee would 

be tasked with reviewing the existing regulation, associated guidance, and orders to 

determine whether additional requirements or guidance is required and to develop such 

materials, as needed. 

You stated that Boeing’s concern is that during recent type certification projects, the Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (SACO) gave you compliance requirements and guidance that 

did not appear to have foundation in the existing regulations and guidance material. You 

also stated the additional guidance provided by the SACO appeared to deviate from the 

advisory circular guidance established. 

When evaluating a request for immediate rulemaking, the primary criterion is to correct 

known safety issues. Your letter did not address a known safety issue, but rather indicated 

there were problems with guidance interpretation during type certification projects. In 

addition, your letter did not provide instances where the rule has deviated from or conflicted 

with the SACO guidance or compliance requests. Therefore, we have insufficient 

information to determine whether the rule and guidance conflicted, as stated. 

In general, we use the following criteria to determine which petitions for rulemaking are of 

sufficient priority to initiate a rulemaking action: 

1) the immediacy of the safety concerns the petition raises; 

2) the priority of other FAA rulemaking issues; and 

3) the resources we have available to address these issues. 
2

We have evaluated your proposal and interpret it to be a request to form an FAA and 

industry group to review and standardize function and reliability guidance, rather than a 

petition for rulemaking. Due to insufficient information presented to warrant an immediate 

rule change, we must deny your rulemaking petition. In addition, your petition does not 

address an immediate safety concern to warrant resources at this time. We find the 

requirements in § 21.35 (b) and (f) are fundamental safety requirements that establish a 

reasonable expectation of service experience for new or significantly modified aircraft. 

Our Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority contained in Title 49 U.S. 

Code of Federal Regulations §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, 

your petition for rulemaking is hereby denied. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Dorenda D. Baker 

Director, Aircraft Certification 

 Service